To Obey the Prophet(PBUH) is obligatory to every Muslim
-
I will ask again Were other prophets required to follow the hearsay of long chains of narration regarding Muhammad?
All other prophets were before Muhammad PBUH ,so did not need to follow any narration regarding Muhammad PBUH wether authentic or hearsay.
If you have some prophet coming 'after" Holy Prophet (PBUH) ,that is not ours .Sorry to say.
-
Peace Hussein
Salaam Navid,
1- incorrect. You cannot prove that nothing was added or subtracted by the signs alone, especially since you do not speak Arabic. Probably, no one can but God. Show me how the signs prove no additions and no subtractions.Right, so to know the quran is God's message, we must rely on things outside of the quran. Got it.
2- I nor any Sunni scholar ever said that you have to accept all hadeeths. However, we do not reject them like you do because of bias=Hawa.
I hate to burst your bubble. You are not a prophet. They received messages from God that you will never receive. You have to deal with what was left for you of means of knowledge, including, but not limited to those chains of narration.Hussein
Stop making generalizations. I am sure some are accurate. I am not, at all, saying ALL hadith are corrupt/not true. They are fine for history. But I and a lot of us here believe we do not need anything other than the quran for our deen. The only one that seems to have bias is you brother.
So do you agree or disagree that muslims before the time of the prophet Muhammad followed every single thing (down to which side to sleep on) the prophet Muhammad did?
Simple, really.
Peace
-
Salaam Navid,
I asked about completeness without addition nor subtraction. You did not answer the Question.
I am glad that you do not reject all hadeeth. Can I ask how you fast and when?
As for the way of sleeping, you are then making generalizations because most Sunnis do not care how the prophet slept, unless he indicated a religious reason for it and the hadeeth was deemed authentic by the reader.
Take care
Hussein
-
I have a question.
Can the mountain goat (PBUH) that swallowed the verses of stoning be a messenger? What can we call him/her? Does it count if it is a negative message?
-
I have a question.
Can the mountain goat (PBUH) that swallowed the verses of stoning be a messenger? What can we call him/her? Does it count if it is a negative message?
Why are using PBUH for a goat??
Is she your prophet?
Why to show such brailessness.
If possible give the difference between
-To teach a book
-To give a book
If you do not know ask a 6th grade student.So simple. -
Why are using PBUH for a goat??
Because the Holy Goat (PBUH) destroyed some verses from the holy quran, and saved us all. Peace be upon her.
-To teach a book
The Holy Goat (PBUH) taught us the book in its authenticated form by removing the stoning verses.
-To give a book
Ask a 6th grader
-
Salaam all,
Warner, thanks for you kind words and polite demeanor. Here is an Aya that talks about God's words
Wain ahadun mina almushrikeena istajaraka faajirhu hatta yasmaAAa kalama Allahi thumma ablighhu mamanahu thalika biannahum qawmun la yaAAlamoona96 If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah. and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
Salaam Hussein
As I said I am trying to understand your line of thinking but is 96 the only reason that we should accept that Quran as uncreated or do you have more evidence to add to that?
If the Mushrikeena listen to a verse from the Quran such as 7924 in which Pharaoh proclaims "I am your Lord Most High." or a sentence from Satan or disbelievers rejecting God will it be still applicable that the Mushrikeen have listened to the words of Allah. Can the objective in 96 be fulfilled if the Mushrikken listened to these verses ?
-
Salaam Navid,
1- incorrect. You cannot prove that nothing was added or subtracted by the signs alone, especially since you do not speak Arabic. Probably, no one can but God. Show me how the signs prove no additions and no subtractions.Even assuming the chains of narration of the ahadith dealing with the methods of collection are 100% verified (wild speculation, to say the least), this does not change the fact that those ahadith are not necessarily accurate. I know about the science of the isnad, etc. but the reality is, at some point you have to simply have faith that the quran was not added to or subtracted from. Even if you know, through ahadith, how the quran was collected, this does not change the fact that you are putting faith in those ahadith (as opposed to faith in the verses of the quran which state it is complete). Whether you believe in the quran alone, or follow ahadith, then, you still have to rely on faith on some primal level. At some point in the analysis, uncertainty abounds and faith takes over. In other words, your asking this question is completely irrelevant. Your point, at best, pushes the analysis back one step. It is not a conclusive analysis in and of itself. Those who are objective will see this. It is not open to dispute.
2- I nor any Sunni scholar ever said that you have to accept all hadeeths. However, we do not reject them like you do because of bias=Hawa.
I hate to burst your bubble. You are not a prophet. They received messages from God that you will never receive. You have to deal with what was left for you of means of knowledge, including, but not limited to those chains of narration.Your statement that brother Navid rejects them "because of bias" is pure speculation, of course. By all accounts, he does not follow ahadith as extra divine guidance simply because the quran does not tell him to do so; nay, the quran goes further and affirmatively asserts that the muslimeen must not take other sources as guidance.
The reality is the burden of proof is upon those who support the use of ahadith as extra sources of divine guidance. The quran's prohibitions are clear in this regard. No other source is to be used. Now if you want to dispute that straightforward muhkamat ayat, you must bring other straightforward verses to prove your case.
Posing non-sequiturs or asking circular questions like "how do you pray?" or "how do you fast?" does not change the fact that the quran is explicitly clear on this issue. In order to dispute this, the burden is on you to bring similarly clear verses that stand in contravention to the default interpretation of not following any other source but the quran.
There's really no way around that. I am sorry.
Of course I am assuming you are intellectually honest, and are affirmatively seeking truth, as opposed to merely defending any dogma your worldview is currently attached to.
Peace.
-
Peace Leo
What do you think about the following verse in the debate
on the created and the uncreated Quran.8119 In nahu_ laqaulu rasu_lin karim
The Quran came to us and to the rest of mankind from the Prophet as his speech from his mouth. Since it is human speech is this not created?
8119 In nahu laqulu rasulin kareem...8120 thi quuwatin 3inda thil 3arshi makeen
(a most honorable messenger..Owner of power and well established with the Lord of the Throne)This is about Gabriel, not the prophet
-
Salaam Hussein
In the Quraan God mentions about His Ayat/Verses/Signs/Miracles. He mentions about the truth/Haqq and He mentions about His Wahy/Revelations. Do Ayat, Haqq and Wahy include Hadith as well? Do we treat Hadeeth with the same importance as the Quraan?
-
8119 In nahu laqulu rasulin kareem...8120 thi quuwatin 3inda thil 3arshi makeen
(a most honorable messenger..Owner of power and well established with the Lord of the Throne)This is about Gabriel, not the prophet
Salaam Samia
Yes, it seems it is Gabriel. Don'tyou think the verse creates certain dent in the belief that Quran is uncreated.
I honestly do not want to engage in a debate about Quraan being created or uncreated. It does not affect my faith in the Quran or in following it. I personally like to leave it among the things hidden or which I will not understand. I remember the same debate about ruh since ruh was breathed by Allah to man.
-
Salaam warner
Like you, I do not like to engage in discussing something I do not see how it is related to my faith. I do not know what God exatly is, but I know what He is not He is unlike any of His creation. If the words of a human are parts of him, then God's words should not be part of Him.
I believe that those who believe that the qur'aan is uncreated, believe in a global pre destination all people, actions and everything has been registered in the eternity. So, anything about (reasons or occasions of revalation ) is redundant. I wonder how the belief in the non creation of the qur'aan will accommodate the notion of (asbaabun/munaasabaatun nizuul reasons/occasions of revalation).
-
...also, if "words of God" should be eternal because they are "of God", Gabriel also should be eternal because he is the Holy spirit, and referred to as "Ruuhuna/ Ruuhin from Us".
Dear elder sister
Just curious to know where in the Quran it is mentioned that "Ruhul-Qudus" or "Roohona" terms are used for "Gabriel".Note This query has nothing to do with eternity/non-eternity issue.It is the query of the name only.
Waiting for reply
your younger brother. -
Why are using PBUH for a goat??
Is she your prophet?
Why to show such brailessness.
If possible give the difference between
-To teach a book
-To give a book
If you do not know ask a 6th grade student.So simple.I don't need Braille (great invention), so yes, I am Brailleless.
It's very simple. The goat must be a messenger, because messengers bring forth scripture and other things, and according to hearsayists, this goat abrogated a verse of the Quran, thus transforming an important part of social law.
-
I don't need Braille (great invention), so yes, I am Brailleless.
It's very simple. The goat must be a messenger, because messengers bring forth scripture and other things, and according to hearsayists, this goat abrogated a verse of the Quran, thus transforming an important part of social law.
Good to know.
your messengers are among animals.Very strange And the Holy Quran has declared;
7179
(7179) And certainly We have created for Hell many of the jinn and mankind; *140 they have hearts with which they fail to understand; and they have eyes with which they fail to see; and they have cars with which they fail to hear. They are like cattle - indeed, even more astray. Such are utterly heedless -
Salaam all,
Warner,
As I said I am trying to understand your line of thinking but is 96 the only reason that we should accept that Quran as uncreated or do you have more evidence to add to that?
I have stated my reasons for why the Sunnis refused to say the "Qur'an is created." You may want to reread my original posts on this subject. My response of 96 is to your posting of Qawlu Rasoolin kareem= Saying of a generous messenger. QAWL encompasses two things
1- words of the messenger
2- words of the sender.96 mentions that the Qur'an is the words of the sender. Basically, I brought that your statement does not support a created Qur'an. I will repeat some of the main reasons
1- The Qur'an did not say that it was created. That is an important omission.
2- God spoke to Moses. kallama Musa taklima. The Qur'an did not say that God created speech for Moses.
3- Words are not stand alone entities. The question of created or not created is an issue of being stand alone or not. Therefore they follow the nature of the speaker, God.Cavemandoctor,
Whether you believe in the quran alone, or follow ahadith, then, you still have to rely on faith on some primal level. At some point in the analysis, uncertainty abounds and faith takes over.
That is a statement of truth. You cannot prove the authenticity of the Qur'an or it's completion without additions except on a degree of faith. Then, why is it wrong that a Sunni would have some faith in some of the hadeeths. I am not saying all and I am not saying that he should have the same faith as in the Qur'an. Faith is not an all or none law. It is degrees that range from none to very strong and everything in between. In a situation like that, throwing most of the hadeeth without study seems excessive.
Your statement that brother Navid rejects them "because of bias" is pure speculation, of course. By all accounts, he does not follow ahadith as extra divine guidance simply because the quran does not tell him to do so; nay, the quran goes further and affirmatively asserts that the muslimeen must not take other sources as guidance.
Because in 44 places of the Qur'an it says "obey the messenger". The messenger must have ordered things outside the Qur'an and the "obey the messenger" includes them. Your friends here will throw at me this "The Qur'an is 100% authenticated, but the hadeeth is not". Then they either need to
1- Authenticate the Qur'an 100% without hadeeth, which there is no way for them to do. If they cannot do it, then they need to stop parroting this.
2- Accept that authenticating is irrelevant as you mentioned and then they have no reason to not accept hadeeth or at least some hadeeth upon some degree of faith as you mentioned.In the Quraan God mentions about His Ayat/Verses/Signs/Miracles. He mentions about the truth/Haqq and He mentions about His Wahy/Revelations. Do Ayat, Haqq and Wahy include Hadith as well? Do we treat Hadeeth with the same importance as the Quraan?
You do not treat hadeeth at the same importance as the Qur'an. No one does and no one ever did. The Qur'an is the word of God. Authentic Hadeeth is the word of the messenger. Not being as important as the Qur'an does not have to mean "unimportant". It is however more important than the tools that you use as linguistics which get you nowhere or give some of you license to manipulate, or archeaology or the writings of non muslims of the time or your overrated "logic" which seems to divide you because of the lack of it. Why is hadeeth more important than linguistics? Because God said obey the messenger and because God said the the messenger explains the book. God did not say dictionaries explain the book.
Samia,
I believe that those who believe that the qur'aan is uncreated, believe in a global pre destination all people, actions and everything has been registered in the eternity. So, anything about (reasons or occasions of revalation ) is redundant. I wonder how the belief in the non creation of the qur'aan will accommodate the notion of (asbaabun/munaasabaatun nizuul reasons/occasions of revalation).
Totally wrong. The first people who claimed the above were the Jahmis of the Mutazila who were the ones who intimidated and persecuted Imam Ahmad because he would not agree with them that the "Qur'an is created". Imam Ahmad and all the four and great scholars of Sunni thought disagree with the above. Registered in eternity means known but not predestined nor forced upon the person. God is unlimited in time, already knows the future. However the person is the one who will get himself there by his free will and actions and not by what was written in eternity.
...also, if "words of God" should be eternal because they are "of God", Gabriel also should be eternal because he is the Holy spirit, and referred to as "Ruuhuna/ Ruuhin from Us".
1- God said that the angels are created and that Gabriel is created.
2- The "things of God" are two kinds. Things that are stand alone, as Gabriel and Ruh and His slaves and so on. They are created. Things that are not stand alone, such as His mercy, His actions and His speech. Those are attributes of Him.Take care all and have a great day.
Hussein
-
Peace all..
469 And whoever obeys God and the messenger will be among those whom God has blessed from the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the upright. What an excellent companionship!
Sunnists, please explain how the prophet/truthful/upright Muhammad had obeyed the messenger Muhammad..